Mayors to Get Powers to Bulldoze Through Major Housing Developments Under Andy Burnham Devolution Push
Andy Burnham is pushing ahead with one of the most significant expansions of mayoral power in England, giving regional mayors new authority to intervene in major planning decisions and potentially override local councils. The government says the changes are designed to accelerate housebuilding, unlock stalled developments and help deliver the homes Britain desperately needs. Critics, however, fear the reforms could weaken local democratic control and allow powerful mayors to push controversial projects through against the wishes of communities.
The proposals are part of Burnham’s wider devolution programme, which aims to transfer substantial powers from Westminster to elected regional leaders. Under the new system, mayors outside London would gain powers similar to those already held by the Mayor of London, including the ability to “call in” significant planning applications for their own consideration.
The scale of the proposed powers is considerable. Developments involving more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space, or buildings taller than 30 metres would fall within the national thresholds. A mayor could take over such an application and direct the relevant council to approve or refuse it, provided the decision complies with planning law and national and local planning policies.
For Burnham, the argument is straightforward: Britain needs more homes, and the planning system too often prevents them from being built quickly enough.
Housing shortages have become one of the country’s most persistent political problems. Demand for homes has risen sharply, while construction has frequently failed to keep pace. The result has been high rents, expensive house prices and growing pressure on social housing. The government has therefore made housebuilding a central part of its economic agenda.
Burnham’s answer is to give regional leaders the authority to overcome what he sees as unnecessary obstacles.
The government has described the new powers as a way to “green light” developments that are strategically important to local economies. Mayors will also be able to grant permission in advance through Mayoral Development Orders, allowing development to proceed without developers having to submit individual planning applications in certain circumstances.
Supporters believe this could transform the speed at which major projects are delivered.
Large housing developments often involve complicated planning procedures, negotiations with councils, consultations and objections. While these processes are intended to protect communities and ensure responsible development, they can also result in years of delay. Developers may abandon projects, investors may move elsewhere and housing shortages can become worse.
A regional mayor with a broader strategic view could potentially resolve those problems.
Instead of considering every project solely through the perspective of one local authority, a mayor can consider housing, transport, employment and infrastructure across an entire metropolitan area. A new housing development might be unpopular in one neighbourhood but essential to meeting the wider region’s housing needs.
This is the central philosophy behind Burnham’s devolution agenda.
He believes decisions should be made closer to the people affected by them, rather than being controlled by Whitehall. In July, the government announced plans to give mayors greater control over transport, housing, jobs and public services, as well as allowing some regional authorities to retain a share of income tax and business-rate revenues generated by economic growth.
Planning powers are therefore part of a much bigger transfer of responsibility.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 has already established the legal framework for giving strategic authorities greater powers over planning, housing and economic regeneration. It also created local scrutiny committees intended to provide oversight of mayoral decision-making.
The government insists that the new planning powers will not amount to giving mayors unlimited authority.
Councils will continue to decide the majority of planning applications. Every mayoral decision will have to follow planning rules, the relevant local plan and national policy. Applicants will retain rights of appeal, while ministers will maintain a backstop power to intervene.
These safeguards are important because planning decisions can have enormous consequences for local communities.
A new housing development can create jobs, increase the supply of homes and support local businesses. But it can also place pressure on roads, schools, GP surgeries, public transport and other infrastructure. Residents may worry about traffic, congestion, loss of open space or changes to the character of their neighbourhood.
Local councils have traditionally provided a democratic mechanism for dealing with those concerns.
The new system changes the balance.
A mayor elected across an entire region could decide that a development is necessary for the wider public interest even when residents and their local councillors strongly oppose it. That is why opponents have warned that the reforms could empower mayors to overrule local objections.
The political phrase “bulldoze through” captures the concern. It suggests that communities could find themselves unable to stop major developments once a mayor decides that they fit a regional strategy.
Supporters would respond that this is precisely the point.
If every significant development can be blocked by local opposition, national housing targets will remain out of reach. Britain cannot solve a nationwide housing shortage if every new development is treated as someone else’s problem.
This is the familiar tension between national and local interests.
Most people support the construction of more homes in principle. But many communities become more resistant when a specific development is proposed close to where they live. This phenomenon is often described as NIMBYism — “not in my back yard”. Burnham’s government believes stronger mayoral powers can help overcome this problem by giving elected regional leaders the authority to consider the broader needs of an area.
The government has also tried to emphasise that the reforms are not simply about building more houses wherever developers want.
The new planning framework is intended to support strategic development, particularly where housing is connected to transport, employment and infrastructure. The consultation published on August 24 says mayors are expected to work closely with local planning authorities to deliver housing and “good growth” while implementing broader spatial strategies.
This could be particularly important in large urban areas.
Greater Manchester, for example, has spent years attempting to coordinate transport, housing and economic development across multiple councils. A regional approach could allow housing to be concentrated around transport corridors and areas where employment opportunities are growing.
The government has already highlighted the potential of brownfield development. Ministers want more homes built on previously developed land, particularly in cities, rather than relying heavily on green-belt sites.
That distinction could determine how popular the policy becomes.
Building thousands of homes on derelict industrial land near existing transport infrastructure may attract considerably less opposition than large developments on undeveloped countryside. If mayors can demonstrate that their powers are being used primarily to regenerate neglected urban areas, they may gain greater public support.
There is also a financial dimension.
Mayors outside London are expected to receive the ability to impose a development levy to help fund major infrastructure. The government points to the levy used in London to support projects such as the Elizabeth line as an example of how development can help finance the infrastructure required to support growth.
This could help address one of the biggest complaints about large housing developments: that communities are expected to accommodate thousands of new residents without receiving adequate investment in roads, schools and public services.
If developers contribute to infrastructure, the argument for new housing becomes easier to make.
The government has already committed substantial sums to support regeneration and housebuilding. A £1.3 billion portion of the national land and infrastructure fund has been allocated to established mayoral areas, alongside £234 million of additional brownfield funding and £1.5 billion through the Housing Accelerator Fund.
In March, the government also announced up to £1.7 billion of investment across northern city regions, including Greater Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield and the North East, specifically to help unblock major developments and regeneration projects.
The strategy is therefore based on combining money with stronger political authority.
Burnham’s challenge is to prove that the approach will actually deliver homes rather than simply create another layer of bureaucracy.
Planning reform has been attempted many times before. Governments announce ambitious housebuilding targets, but construction frequently falls behind expectations. There are complex reasons for this, including land prices, construction costs, financing conditions, infrastructure limitations and local opposition.
Giving mayors more power can address only one part of the problem.
There is also a danger that political authority becomes concentrated without sufficient scrutiny.
Mayors are directly elected and therefore have democratic legitimacy, but they are also powerful individuals operating across large regions. Critics have questioned whether existing scrutiny arrangements are strong enough to hold them accountable when they make controversial decisions. The broader debate about Burnham’s devolution plans has already raised concerns about whether regional institutions have adequate oversight and public engagement.
That means accountability will be crucial.
If a mayor approves a development despite strong local opposition, residents need to know why the decision was made, what evidence supported it and what benefits the community will receive. Transparency could determine whether devolution strengthens public confidence or creates resentment.
There is another potential political complication: mayors and councils can belong to the same political party.
A Labour mayor could therefore find himself overruling a Labour-controlled council. That could produce difficult internal conflicts, particularly when councillors are under pressure from residents who oppose a major project.
The reforms could consequently change the relationship between mayors and local government as much as they change the planning system itself.
Burnham appears willing to accept that tension.
His wider political argument is that regional leaders should have enough authority to make meaningful decisions. Devolution without real powers, he believes, would simply create another layer of administration without changing anything fundamental.
Housing is an obvious area in which that philosophy can be tested.
If mayors receive the power to accelerate developments and the money to support them, voters can judge whether devolution delivers tangible results. If thousands of additional homes are built, transport improves and new employment opportunities emerge, the model could become a powerful argument for transferring even more authority away from Westminster.
If projects remain stalled, however, critics will ask why additional powers have not produced better outcomes.
The housing crisis makes the stakes particularly high.
More than a million households are currently waiting for social housing in England, while high rents and house prices continue to place enormous pressure on families. The government has committed £39 billion to a major social and affordable housing programme over the next decade, although the distribution of the initial funding has already generated debate about the role of councils and housing associations.
Burnham therefore has a difficult task: he must increase supply while ensuring that the homes being built are genuinely affordable.
Simply approving thousands of expensive private developments would not solve the underlying affordability problem.
The government’s emphasis on social and affordable housing suggests that the new planning powers are intended to form part of a wider strategy. Mayors will have a greater say in how housing funds are spent locally, while Homes England will continue to play a major role in larger schemes.
If the system works as intended, regional leaders could coordinate land, infrastructure, planning powers and housing finance more effectively.
But the word “if” is important.
Power can speed things up, but it can also create conflict. A mayor who believes a development is essential may face residents who believe the project will damage their community. The success of Burnham’s model will depend on whether regional leaders can combine strategic ambition with genuine local engagement.
The consultation process now under way gives communities and organisations an opportunity to comment on how the powers should operate. The consultation is scheduled to close on October 6, 2026.
The government wants the new powers to be operational by early next year.
That means the debate will intensify quickly.
Ultimately, Burnham is attempting something ambitious: to make England’s mayors powerful enough to shape the physical and economic future of their regions.
For supporters, this is exactly what devolution should mean. Instead of waiting for Whitehall to approve every major project, regional leaders with a direct electoral mandate will be able to act.
For critics, however, the danger is that local democracy could become an obstacle to development rather than a safeguard against it. Giving mayors the ability to override councils may accelerate construction, but it could also leave residents feeling that decisions are being imposed upon them.
The success or failure of Burnham’s housing strategy will therefore depend on more than the number of planning applications approved.
The government will need to demonstrate that new homes are affordable, that infrastructure keeps pace with development and that local communities have a meaningful voice. Mayors will need to show that their new powers are being used strategically rather than politically.
Britain undeniably needs more homes. The question is how those homes should be built and who should have the final say.
Burnham’s answer is clear: give regional mayors more power and responsibility, then judge them on the results.
That could prove to be a decisive test of his entire devolution philosophy. If the new powers unlock housing, regenerate neglected areas and create stronger regional economies, Burnham may establish a powerful new model for English government.
If communities instead feel bulldozed aside, the very policy designed to bring power closer to the people could end up producing a new backlash against concentrated political authority.
The next few years will reveal which of those two outcomes becomes reality.